who's been incarcerated down for a number of years. he was detailed by the director of intelligence. >> and when his contract expired they said go and we will pay you later. he had all the e-mails. this is an fbi agent who was kidnapped, was arrested. i think they found these e-mails from cia honest e-mail come on his own or his computer your he was probably roughed up and died of a heart attack, and this is all speculation. it's incompetence. that's not the way you run intelligence. you don't run intelligence with the port authority effective whose operating on his own, and you don't let analysts send messages on e-mail from cia. it's sheer incompetence. it's sprawling intelligence community is out of control. >> i think we're out of time for
questions, but rob will be signing in the atrium and you can ask more questions ar there. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> is there a nonfiction author kabookie would like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail to booktv or c-span.org, tweet us at booktv or post on our wall, facebook.com/booktv. facebook.com/booktv. >> from this conference on james byrnes suicide of the west, and examining and testing of liberalism, a panel entitled the drift of u.s. foreign policy and the challenges to western survival. >> my pleasure to introduce the moderator for the final panel which is u.s. foreign policy of the challenges of western survival. the professors to diplomat and
lectern international studies here at your mic the report immediately, he served as a senior advisor to george shultz, and because new and reagan justin mckee. professor hill is a research fellow at stanford's hoover institute. i served as chief foreign policy adviser to candidate rudy giuliani. author of the book's grand strategy and trial of 1000, professor teaches in the brady just program one of the most part but also most rigorous to their summers offered at yale that handles questions leadership, stay cricket diplomacy. he teaches in direct studies, ma western civilization freshman your program. without further ado please welcome our moderator, professor charles hill. [applause] >> thank you, and good afternoon. my first job before getting to the panel is to wave this in front of you. this is just out.
it's available from amazon, and it is for the handful of you who haven't read this, it is eerie, uncanny how relevant this work is to what we're talking a here today. i recommend you go out and get it online. today is the panel on the drift in u.s. foreign policy. we have three remarkable public intellectuals of wide-ranging influence on the panel today. i will introduce them in the order in which they will speak for 10 minutes or so and then leaving is time for questions. katie mcfarland is with fox news, as national security expert, a columnist. she is the anchor for the deaf,
three at fox, served in the nixon, ford and reagan administrations. she, as i was once an aide to henry kissinger, speechwriter she was for secretary of defense caspar weinberger. once deputy assistant secretary dissent, she's run for office for the senate and generally someone who really knows, knows the foreign affairs business. second, jayme whom i have known for some time, since his declaration sure at yale as a student. he has become the classic foreign correspondent of the kind that we don't see much of anymore. he has been most recently with radio free europe, radio
liberty. this publication list is, i've got to say, unmatched in its wide range of "the new republic," weekly standard, "the wall street journal," "the new york times," the "daily beast," the australian, it's really, really something. he we talked to a believe mostly about his views on europe at the moment. and then in cleanup, adding position, the fund of institute for secularization of islamic society and vice president of the world encounter institute. is written on all things about the koran, about second position of in-laws -- islam, but his own life is not about a muslim. and he's done a fundamentally
important critique of the orientalism. and you can imagine from his work that he has concerns about his personal security. i would only say that his title, the drift in u.s. foreign policy may not be exactly on target because it could very well be, perhaps it is that the course of american foreign policy now is exactly president obama once it to be. it's not getting at all. that is not disengaged. is not incompetent. it's going exactly as he hoped, perhaps a little slower than he hoped, but it is perhaps in his view of his finest hour. this is a profile in courage as he stands up to the critics of
the foreign policy. so we would begin with katie mcfarland. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> first of all how many of you watch fox news? forget all the stuff he said. i'm the brunette on fox news. [laughter] okay, suicide of the west, american decline, the post-american world. the majority of americans i think including the president believes that her best days are over. 's attitude is is contagious. i think the president feels very strongly that leading from behind means that we will be left behind and that's okay because the world has not been a better place with american leadership. he looks at the last 10 or 15 years, the last republican administration, the war in iraq
afghanistan and i think he feels as did his like-minded contemporaries that the world is a better place if america takes a step down. why? because of in the global committee, whatever that is, summit going to run things. i don't think he hasn't thought through what tends to happen when a great power steps back from the world stage so instead of the global community it tends to be dictatorship, monarchies, for ttoward incumbents who do nt miss and wish us well but to then take charge, if not that, then it's global chaos. so for someone to ask you, how many of you bought into america's best days are over come our children will not have as good a life as we have? it's been great but like all empires, america had a sort of beginning and end its rise, then its decline. how many of you think, and a lot think this way. >> a roomful of conservatives.
>> the people outside of israel, 75% of them think that america's best days are behind us. they are wrong and you are right. i will tell you why. first of all decline is an is nothing new. we've had it since the very beginning of time. in my lifetime and the 1970s there was a soviet union that had the better economic system. they're going to take over the world, didn't work out so well so japan in the 1980s, they brought -- bought rockefeller center. didn't work out in the 1990s it was the european union but everybody had the year. they were the model we were looking for. didn't work out that well for them either. now it's china. china will take over the world. china is a great are. we are now falling down. to the last because obama was engaging in history like a lame duck leader of a has-been nation. the chinese media was full of all sorts of articles about america's finished acknowledacknowled ge china's turn. america's days are over and begin they agreed with some of the leaders of our country that
infected probably a good thing. let me tell you why they are wrong. i think america is, in fact, just a few political decisions that a couple years away from being the second greatest american century. i've said where republicans who go, stand up for debate in the primary season of our electoral come and go for your elections would also i believe america is a great country and it's almost like the member peter pan if you close your eyes and peter pan sprinkles fairy dust, tinkerbell was going to come back to life. i don't think so. i think it's the next great american century for some very specific reasons why. if you look at the history of the world since the industrial revolution. wars have been fought over energy. countries and regions of the world which have had coal, oil, natural gas happen wealthy beyond imagining. the country that did not have those things have tried to fight to get them. world war i apart was to
determine who controlled the world. hitler invaded russia. japan attacked pearl harbor because they want to get continuous flow of oil through the pacific. we went through two wars, iraq, the two iraq wars, they may have been disguised but they were in effect about oil. whoever has will, whoever has energy controls the economic prosperity of the world. we have a president who a few years ago was talking about cheap oil that we're running out of oil. it was all over. it was in decline. we now in the last several years have had a revolution in the united states which is used when you come into the national consciousness. because the american technology and getting and innovation, our people have looked underground, develop 3-d mapping, have looked underground and they realized that not only do we have energy. with oil and natural gas in such abundance that it is probably greater than some of the oil and natural gas areas in other parts
of the world. the second thing is develop the technology to bring out of the ground safely and abundantly and securely. it's been things like 3-d mapping. it's been horizontal going. it's been fracturing, hydraulic fracturing. all those things have been there are certain parts of this country an and doctor which have the ability to oil out of the ground in something like $4050 a barrel. what does that mean? a couple key decisions away. what is going to happen in the united states if we do make the correct decisions as to the quick decisions on things like keystone pipeline, no-brainer. allowing the energy companies to drill on federal and state lands are corporate tax reform to lower the corporate tax rates to repatriate public 2.1 trained dollars of american investment that would come back to the united states and the ability to export all the cheap energy to here's what i think happens. we take those decisions and choose we are starting 24 months from now. number one, there will be jobs
that are clear to the energy industry, oil and natural gas. we have our sing that. the lowest unemployment rate in the whole united states is in north dakota because of fracking. connecticut, ma this state, you've embraced fracking. and something even more so has embraced fracking to the point where if i live in nuke state of people in the apartment across the border into pennsylvania because they can get jobs in pennsylvania is embracing this and governor cuomo is not embracing it. they will be a direct number of jobs in the attack country as result of fracking, probably some estimates are two to 3% boom in the gdp. that's directly to energy. the second wave of jobs come as the united states manufacture becomes competitive, really competitive, out in just going to be 25% cheaper than energy in japan. probably 15%, 10% cheaper the energy in your. that means companies which account overseas in the last 20
years, back. the traditional manufacturing we've had, maybe not the same things, maybe a new version of think that they're going to be made in the united states more cheaply than in our competitors which is europe and japan. then there's a third wave i think the comes with it is cheap energy is going to marry up with to put $1 trillion which would come from overseas to be reinvested in the united states. they're going to invest in new technologies, things like 3-d printing, robotics, nanotechnology, bioengineering, pharma. we will have a whole industrial revolution akin to what we had the first time and probably even better than what we have the second time with the internet information age revolution. so we're looking at probably a generation of economic prosperity. what does that mean? the next decision we make is we export, once we get her own energy, industry is kick started that we can start exporting oil and natural gas. we're exporting lng at a slow
rate. we did it more quickly but we'll start exporting oil. what does that due to the price of oil? it's already dropping without has exporting because we are using our own natural resources, our own oil. but once the price of oil goes to $80 a barrel, it banks of the bad guys. russia is predicated on a budget that is $100 a barrel oil. putin in fact are the budget in the last year about russia's going to spend its money on and it was predicated on $100 a barrel oil. when you took it to the committee that sort of overseas this and they said $100 a barrel oil, that's lower. he fired the committee and center of the guys. the russians have rainy day funds to compensate for a low price of oil but they are not infinite and probably last 18 months, two years. they will have to compensate for low oil prices. oil prices are not going to go back up. they may not be at 80. they may go to 90. they may go to something but
they will have or below 100. what that does is the soviet union, russia, if oil doesn't get $100 a barrel, they don't make table. putin's goals are infrastructure rebuilding and the defense bill. he can't afford either of those. as result of that he will have unhappy russians. unhappy military if he doesn't spend on that. unhappy russian retirees it doesn't sound -- subsidize them. the second thing is other countries we don't relight and don't like us start run into trouble. iran, venezuela. they also need high oil prices because they have spent the last 15 years of the oil windfall profits they have had not investing. they have not built infrastructure. did not build alternative industries for their people. they have just taken the money, in some cases they but military animals cases a subsidized their populations. once the prices of oil and natural gas go down, they have
nothing. that is exactly where we were in the late 1980s when ronald reagan helped push the price of oil down when charlie was one the speeches for them. the price of oil went from $40 of their to $18 a barrel in nine months and bankrupted the then soviet union. that's one of the key factors of the fall of the soviet empire. the united states will have a manufacturing renaissance. at the same time the bad guys are going to go broke. now let's look at china. right? china will take over the world. they are a demographic timebomb. i was in china, in beijing in the spring and a beautiful sunny day and went to the equivalent of central park. when i go to central park on the people they can what you see? moms, to stores, maybe two identical twins but you see a lot of little kids and you see dad and maybe grandma.
barrel hovering and what is there, there's a dog. you go to china, their central park a what you see? you see one star, one little boy who is three, and four, sometimes 600 adults. you see mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, grandma, grandpa. those of those are look at the child, their cold little emperors. because of the one child policy, the chinese have a much higher% of male birth. so for every 120, 130 meals, there are 100 females. i have three sons and two daughters and i can tell you three boys who don't have anything to do and don't have, a girlfriend, don't have a me, they're in trouble by the time they're in a mid '20s to that's what china is headed. they won't have made for the population for a significant percentage of the population to their economy is on the down slide for so for reasons. they are militarism and nationalism is on the upswing. so the chinese are looking at i think not only a period where
they will have demographic problems, remember the six adults hovering over the little boy emperor who will support them all into old age because there's no social welfare system in china, they'll have demographic problems with the aging population. they will have demographic problems with one child policy and all the little boys but i think they will have social unrest problems because they can't keep the lid on social media forever. they have acted as they've seen the arab spring in the middle east and in other parts of the world, they got very nervous that could come to china but it started to try to crush the whole exposure to the outside world. that isn't going to last forever. we look ahead and i think it's going to be a lousy couple of years because i think the president, he's on his jihad. is going to do whatever he thinks at this time, right? is going to have immigration, he's going to do all the things you've been dreaming of doing so thank you be a couple of early tough years. but eventually change of
leadership and also just give it to people are not dealt despite the fact one of my mit colleagues thinks that they're all so stupid. but anyway, by the way, if you don't watch fox as you realize that mit professor said the reason they were so obamacare was because american people were stupid. so lousy couple of years but the market is going to take over and i think the united states is in for an absolute boom time for the rest of our days. so i'm telling my five children, you've got jobs, you'll get more jobs, and am going to be able to retire because you're going to go working for me and it's going to be great. so thank you very much. [applause] >> well, i hate to be the half empty glass to that -- [laughter] presentation. i blame it on the last three and half years i spent living in
europe probably. i would recommend as an in addition to trend in -- "suicide of the west," how democracies perish. also there's impressions and the way they deal with the russian threat. it was the soviet threat which is now the russian threat to the remarkable similar these that exists between the two today. i just got back from berlin two days ago where i was there for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. it was a very ominous occasion, although most of the people there didn't seem to understand why it was so ominous, or only several hundred miles east the russians are busily merrick kelley dividing europe once again. and something that no one in europe really thought possible that could ever happen on
european territory. there is still a war going on on the european continent. and for the passover years i was living in europe, working for a radio free europe, and our polish involved college would warn us about russian aggression, but the spread of russian influence and money and aggression against their neighbors. they were always derided as being the silly cold war people stuck in the past commando to understand we have a new relationship with russia, and why are you guiding us into all these problems? now those people been proven right and i would say that their worst nightmares have actually, that they could've saved even worse things. look what putin this week has defended the hitler-stalin pact of 1939. this is very scary stuff. i don't think most people in
europe have come to terms with the editor because people in the united states have come to terms with it, and how unpredictable this regime in moscow is. in the past year has shown some very discomforting fissures within the transatlantic alliance, the country were thought or expected to have been very firm supporters of nato, of a unified western response to russian aggression, have actually proven to be very weak links. the president of the czech republic, oslo, the defense minister of the czech republic and the present of slovakia, both of them like an stationing of nato troops on the territories, both of these treasure our members, likened the stationing of nato jets on their territory as being akin to the 1968 warsaw pact invasion of chocolate hockey. these are leaders of democratic allies and members of nato in good standing.
hungary at this point would probably not be able to join the eu, given the democratic backsliding that we have seen there. the russians have an expert at using edward snowden, how everything he got to moscow, whether he was a russian agent from the beginning or did he end up miraculous in moscow. they had used them remarkably well in turning european public opinion against the united states, particularly in germany where most of the most embarrassing leaks have been directed at the german public opinion. icy michael hayden here, when i was in germany i told my german friends that i'm sorry, but chancellor merkel should not have been discussing anything other than potato soup recipes on her cell phone. it is not a safe form of communication.
but that has provoked very strong anti-american sentiment in germany. real unprecedented step of having a cia station chief kicked out of an allied embassy, so that doesn't ever happen. that happened in germany this summer. it's very easy to lament european pacifism. we been doing that for decades since the end of world war ii, and start of the cold war come and calling on the europeans to pay for more of their own defense, take a tougher line. but i think there is a lot of blame has to be laid at the figure of the administration in washington. i think when you take a policy of leaving from behind, particularly in europe, this is the first post your president we've ever had who has no real connections to europe, no real affinity for europe. i think every other president has had some sort of connection to the european continent. this was her asian president was going to have a pivot to asia. this is what happens when you
lead from behind and he basically leave allies to do as they please. i have to make their own arrangements. if you're a small country in the middle of europe, oftentimes those arrangements are going to be some form of accommodation or a similar decision with the bare. i was in a stone a couple of weeks ago and i see a real possibility that you could have crimea type situation in estonia where there's no russian soldiers going in, no russian tanks but it's literally a handful of russian special operations forces without any insignia taking over government building in a majority russian town on the border. all you would need, all putin would have to do to destroy midwest have the estonian government invoke article v, which mandates that an attack on one is an attack on all, and chapter the portuguese and spanish to know, we don't think this is an invasion, nato is destroyed. the most successful international security alliance
world has ever seen can be destroyed with one simple step. in the middle east, what happens when you leave allies and you withdraw? nobody believes president obama when he says that he'll prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. no one believes that. shortly not after the syria red line was announced and then promptly ignored. the saudis will that pretty much said openly that they would develop their own nuclear program, so we buy them from the pakistanis. we now have a rather remarkable alliance with israel and egypt, jordan, saudi arabia and the sunni arab status quo powers. basically take on the role of what the united states used to play, which was that of the regional hegemons to but because we're pretty much a announced that we have no interest in the middle east anymore, we have
basic left all these countries to sort it out for themselves. two months ago, egypt and the uae launched airstrikes in libya. do you remember libya? do you remember tha libya? do you remember that country would hold fading from behind thing started? they launched airstrikes to prevent islamist militia taking over the country. we left olivia behind. this was according to the president himself i believe in a recent interview with tom frieden can you consider this a signal foreign policy achievement of his administration. it says something up that he would consider this to be the signal foreign policy achievement of his administered should look at the state the country is in. the egyptians and united arab emirates are launching airstrikes without even warning the united states beforehand. behavior like this would've never been tolerated 10 years ago. you just wouldn't have been able to get away with it but now it's just what happens.
i think one of the key lessons we take from burnham is how gullible democracies are to be manipulated, to being co-opted by authoritarian powers. it's very easy to spread disinformation, propaganda, li lies. and i'm very interested in what the russians are doing in this field, and the disinformation field. if any of you are missing the network are key, it is a thing to behold. it is -- it is horrible, evil and its censure but it's brilliant television. it has a huge audience and it is not soviet style propaganda. this is real high tech stuff that appeals to people of all political stripes from the far left to the far right. it's a millionaire like and it works because you have a democratic society.
we don't take out their journalist. we don't censor them as they do our side. so that's a major challenge. so hate to be so pessimistic, but i am very worried about the state of europe and our alliances structure there. i think the next two years ago and to be very difficult, but i do ultimately agree with kt that in the end america will most likely endure. [laughter] [applause] >> and thank you. i would like to thank the william f. buckley program for inviting me. i'm a little bit puzzled as to why i had been invited because i'm really not a foreign policy expert, unlike my copanelists and professor hill. however, i will make a few
comments but do keep that door open. [laughter] professor hill mentioned somebody has done their homework. i did not send his in my bio to be organized, but professor hill mentioned i found something called the institute for the democrats are you sure know, second edition of islamic society, which gives you the acronym isis. [laughter] i had to abandon that. [laughter] okay. i should also like to thank some of my friends who have influenced me in in what i'm going to say now, people like sebastian, robert reilly, and hugh fitzgerald. now, james burnham's book "suicide of the west" is full of insight on american foreign policy, which i find relevant to
this day. in fact, one has only two subs in islam for communism in many of his observations to realize their continued. i should limit myself to one of his observations from chapter 12 your quote, the communists divide the world into zone of peace and soda for. the zone of peace in the region that is already subject to communist rule and label signifies a within the region economies will not permit any political tendency, violent or nonviolent with a purely internal result to challenge the rule. the zone of war is a region where economies rule is not yet but in due course will be established, and within the zone of war the communist promote, assist and where possible lead political tendencies, violent or not vote, democratic or revolutionary, that operate
against non-communist rule. clear in of these definition can you smashed the hungarian freedom fighters in support for castro to you know where you are, where you're going, end of quote. the above could have been a ditch the definition of the islamic doctrine of jihad and its notions of the zone of peace, and zone of war. now to my main points. i have broken them down into numbers, points, but perhaps i can develop these. engaged by a war of ideas with a pencil in the and ideology, an ideology that will not collapse of economic in continent. number two, the ideology of the terrorists is a religiously
based and derived from islam and its founding text, au courant and the history of the early caliphate. three, one but not the only one way of knowing this is because they tell us so. if you want to understand the enemy, read what they say. they constantly justify their acts with accurate and adaptations for the bronze. they refer to a most of the books works of -- whose work milestones is so important for the islamists, abdullah's defense of muslim lands, the carotid concept of power, and knights under the prophet's banner. some of the latter have doctorates from recognize islam as university. to hear john kerry trying to tell them their ideas have nothing to do with islam is
comical. islamic terrorism is not caused by poverty, lack of education, sexual deprivation, psychological problems or lack of economic opportunity, western imperialism or western decadence, or even the arab-israeli conflict. there are two kinds of jihad, terrorism and slow penetration of western institutions subverting western laws and customs from within. six, ma ignorance, naïveté, arrogance, political correctness, shear laziness, sentimentality, and on top of that, saudi qatari back and iranian money have led to islam's successes in penetrating western institutions from the voice of america, the pentagon, cia. i have documentation to back all that. the commish went on to the
pentagon, fbi, dhs, to universities and colleges were islam propaganda is famously at openly decimated. while groups such as isis, al-qaeda and others are nonstate actors, they are funded by states such as qatar, saudi arabia and iran. these three countries, for example, also provide the necessary islamic support framework and propaganda that spews forth anti-western and not the american hatred. they should be warned at least or face the consequences. eight, it is also important to point out that it is not something we have done that ism telling the islamists are causally apologizing, mr. president, is not going to help at all. it's pointless. nine, we must learn the lessons of the cold war for the striking similarities between islamists ideology and that of soviet russia. this is pointed out even in the
1920s by russell and then in the '50s, and more recently. number 10, you must speak out in support of the christians who have been persecuted and been killed almost every day in islamic countries. there are also apart from you mentioned reasons i believe there are other reasons which to do with what i hope would be the secularization of islamic societies. in order to succeed we need urgently to recover our civilizational self-confidence. 12, last, my number port, one way we can fight jihad ideology is to underline their certainties. and one can accomplish this with koranic criticism in the west, spinoza, a special with this book -- he hastened the
enlightenment by his biblical criticism. three enormous volumes on the enlightenment begins with spinoza and it supports are getting the whole enlightenment agenda going. okay, some more comments. there's an obvious need to understand the islamist ideology to understand the mindset of the islamic terrorists. terrorism is not caused by quality and so on. it is to the ideology, ideology that is the source of its moral legitimacy. without it, terrorism cannot exist. terrorists are produced by a totalitarian ideology justifying terrorism. while america has had some impressive tactical successes and is managed to kill osama bin
laden and anwar awlaki, it still fails to understand their goals, their ideology. the reasons for this there aren't many. first, there is a reluctance to address the religious inspiration of the act of terrorism. to admit that their ideology is derived from islam and its founding text, the koran and others and the early history of the caliphate. instead they present administration exhorts us to use euphemisms such as violent extremism. to quote my friend did a report on this, where's 9/11 commission report published under the presidency of george bush in july 2004, had used the word islam 322 times, muslim 145 times, jihad 126 times,
jihadists 32 times, the national intelligence strategy of the united states issued by the obama administration in august 2009 years the term islam zero times, muslim zero times and jihad zero times. now, obama's policy applies to internal government targets as well which can only have disastrous consequences for our understanding of political groups and events in the middle east. afghanistan from pakistan and south and southeast asia. how can we possibly analyze the power of the pale of the ideology the way that ideas sent in strategy and tactics, why such huge minutes if any reference to the islamic religion and its text, all doctrines isn't permitted? perhaps it was only in 1946 when george kennan's, wrote is classified long telegram that
america began to understand the nature of the soviet union. why it acted the way it did and that the kremlin thought, why the ussr was a grave threat to america. in other words, it took three decades to understand the mind of the enemy. to complicate matters further, today there are two enemies, first non-european religiously informed nonstate terrorist groups like isis. second and equally dangerous, states that, in fact, fund and support them. there's evidence just recently the atlantic reported in june of this year two of the most successful factions fighting assad's forces are islamist extremist groups on those are, and islamic state of iraq and syria. and their success is in part due to the sport to have recovered, received from the two persian gulf countries qatar and saudi arabia.
that was a quote from the atlantic. our ability to fight al-qaeda and similar transnational terrorist actors will depend upon our capacity to communicate to her own citizens and to the world what it is we are fighting for and what it is ideology of jihad threatens in terms of values we hold so dear. to quote in war it is not enough, to no to any in order to win. him one must first know oneself but however at the end of the cold war america and the west understandably perhaps lost clarity with regard to what it was about its way of life that was precious and worth fighting for. james burnham explains for clarity the reason for this loss of self-confidence and what he wrote is still relevant. court, judging a group of human beings a race and nation class or party that he considers to
possess less than their to upholding liberty. the liberal is hard put to it to condemn that group morally for acts of the would not hesitate to condemn in his fellows. when the western liberals feeling of guilt and is associated getting a moral role of billy before the source in defense of the wretched, excessive, he often develops a generalized hatred of western civilization, and of his own country as a part of the west. he can frequently since his hatred in journals like the nation. end of quote. in order to succeed, my last point, we need urgently to recover civilizational self-confidence. ronald reagan was in to see because he was supremely confident of the moral and spiritual superiority of his kostecki was able to state with certainty and without hesitation that the soviet empire was evil.
who is not afraid to confront reality. is able to defend our values because he believed in them totally. he told an audience quote go into any school room in america and there you will see children in top the desperation of independence, that they are endowed by the creator of uncertain unalienable rights among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that no government can justly deny. end of quote. it was describe what reagan advocated unapologetically quote, this is a quote, only he worked for reagan, altogether that there is ideas of freedom, democracy, human rights, moral order and the dignity of the human person were promoted not only by the president's rhetoric and personal moral witness, but by the administration as a whole
in numerous forms. and the voice of america editorials, radio free europe, radio liberty broadcasts come in articles in the united states information agency, published magazines, targeted at soviet bloc populations, on the u.s. i billboards on the sidewalk outside the u.s. embassy in moscow, and american diplomats addresses of various international fora, and the distribution of books the soviet bloc audiences, there's a recently, recent book which is come out on how the cia distributed doctor zhivago. and it's impact it's had, and so one. to quote asian columnist from the economist a couple of weeks ago quote for all its flaws and missteps, america represents not just economic and military might, but an ideal to aspire to
in a way that china does not. and when american league appeared to give less weight to that ideal, they not only diminish america's attractions, they also lend more credence to the idea of its relative economic and military decline, end of quote. the rest of the world recognizes the virtues of the west, and has once was a markham when the chinese students cried and died for democracy in tiananmen square, they brought with them not representations of confucius or buddha, but a model of the statue of liberty. [applause] >> thank you all for these insightful comments and insights. we have time for a few questions. e.g. raise your hand and if you wish to address at a particular member of the panel, do so.
>> thank you all for being here. i agree with all of you. my question is though goes to the characterization of islam and islamic extremism. iron emir very clearly on 9/11 or 9/12 when president bush said this is not an attack. we are not enemies of islam. we are only against a small percentage of islamic extremists. i know for a fact -- the bush administration didn't act on that knowledge. but as a former diplomat i thought it was pretty good tactical strategy at the very beginning of what everyone knew would be a long war. but you pointed out our current administration does believe, and there is an enormous pressure now toward the political
correctness that islam is a peaceful religion. i know something about the koran. you can find peaceful mentions in it, but basically as you say, islam and islamic terrorism feed on each other. and all you have to do is find the worldwide holes of september of 2001 that showed how many muslims around the world support the attack on the united states. now, my question is, given all these years of political correctness, given the kinds of things that the yale muslim students association were saying in their fortunate unsuccessful attempt to squash ali's appearance at yale, how long is it going to take? what will it take to convince the american people to understand where we are going?
you mentioned it took 30 years after 1970, 40 years for americans to understand soviet communism. i don't think we can wait 40 years for americans to understand the true nature of islam and islamic extremism. what will it take? >> i think that this into the islam and islamism might be a necessary fiction for political leaders, but it doesn't hold water. you are absolute right. but, in fact, i think the american public is far better informed than it was 10 years ago, and i don't think they by the administration's line about islam being a religion of peace. but how can we get been mobilized? how can we get successive administrations to wake up to
the israeli? i'm not certain, but i know that i'm certain within the republican party, they also don't buy into this idea of islam being hijacked by minority of islamists. michele bachmann and others, but also alan west, he's no longer in congress, but he was a former house of representatives. but i have no, apart from people like me continued to write books, giving talks, i have no great grand strategy for it. >> i do think that you have to distinguish between islam and islamism, or islamic extremism. i don't have the figures but there are obviously millions, hundreds of millions of people who are islamic and perhaps
practice that faith peacefully. they may support terrorism, but that is an important distinction to make. i mean, indonesia is the world's largest monarch democracy, over 200 people. certainly we can't describe these of use to the majority of people living in that country. i think that's the case for many islamic countries around the world. i think we have to be careful in distinguishing between those who seek to use violence against civilians to enact their political agenda, islamists, and the many if not most people who identify as muslims and don't support similar tactics but i don't think that you can say that every person who is in the of the muslim faith is a potential terrorist, or -- >> i think also if you look at just, you know, law of numbers
come if there's a billion muscles in the world and only 1% of them are sympathetic on your talk about 1 million people. but yesterday when do we wake up? my guess is it will be -- sorry? tell me. i'i'm sorry, 10 million. 1%, right. [laughter] >> these math majors. i think one of the ways people will wake up. one, there will be another terrorist attack which i think is likely. what kind, who knows? by the appleby is a 30 year war coming and it's going to be shiites versus sunnis, and the shiites are iran, the government in baghdad which is what's left of the iraq and the shiite militias there, will be a fertile to show cause why from taiwan to damascus. that will be opposed to by isis -- tehran to damascus. every sunni groups, radical sunni groups, al-qaeda,
al-nusra front, isis, any moderates in the middle are squished in the middle and if there's a 30 year war it will dawn on people and the rest of the world that maybe there is something to pull sides of the religion to at the most likely it will be another terrorist attack i think that's inevitable. >> thank you all for coming. so i want to ask i guess a more theoretical question. and wraps this is unhelpful, but in framing the way i think conservatives are kind of split on this issue, there seems to be a division among kind of a practical question of only considering foreign policy in a sense of what is going to be best for our nation but i think this is a more libertarian
approach. and also been concerned about setting the precedent of a supernatural kind of focus on human rights being the main concern bear versus thing kind of a moral obligation to get forth the message of liberty to the world, and to basically in our power and in our opportunity try to do good things for the international community, the christians in syria, the people who are under authoritarian regimes. is it a serious attention that needs to be confined within answer because of these two approaches of foreign policy, and how should we frame this issue? >> i would love to answer that because i think there's a civil war coming in the republican party more conservative movement. you said it very well. you expressed it very well, its interventionists versus non-interventionist. just the way of example i'm going to be the chairman of the national security foreign policy committee, cpac. you know what that is? okay. so this is a conference in late
february in washington and i'm trying very hard to get people from all, make a big tent so the people who were from the john mccain wing who will say we need to get involved and go back into iraq and remained at 20,000 troops in iraq to the rand paul windows has no, not all. of every else in between. it is, and it's not an unusual debate. when i was in the reagan administration we have the same debate what it was on one hand, do you want to get involved in the road in the in the middle east, but as with america matter forces? or do not want to get involved in those areas and maybe is economic warfare or other forms of pressure to get the result you want? it's a division that's always been in the conservative movement. it sometimes gets papered over the we don't have anything worth fighting over but now it would be a major and i think it will be probably the major issue in the republican primaries. republicans agree on everything else. cut taxes, less government, they
because on immigration but the national security issue is the one that there will be a very, very wide and raucous debate over it because flash forward to a year from now, iran will be a nuclear state. the middle east will still be at war. who knows where we will be in the know of that were. there will be increased conflict in europe and added think james is right, estonia's neck. you will see a very roiling world in the sense of conflicts around the -- >> i disagree that this is going to be a big fight within the party but i think if you have actually bought the statements of rand paul over the past year, he's been all over the place. >> he's evolving. >> he's evolving as he says. [laughter] >> look, at the end of the day, at the end of the day the republican part is the part of national security hawks. it is india's realize that. if you follow his public statements on isis over literally the week that first journalist was beheaded him it was like night and day.
he had to tune his views. he did a complete 180. personally i think rand paul is very similar to his father in his world outlook, but he's a lot smarter than understanding that he can't let the freak flag fly all the time if he wants to be president of the united states. and so i really think that this kind of rand paul, he is hired some sensibly mainstreamed advisors like richard birch, you worked with, the former head of the international republican institute. but i don't, really don't think that most conservative republican primary voters are going to agree with what rand paul is presenting as foreign policy. >> i disagree. >> all right spent we have time for one more question. >> thank you to either question for kt mcfarland to you mentioned you think a problem likely in china and in china's future growth is going to be the aging population. so do you think that there's a
way to try to prevent that problem or tackle it while also keeping in mind their population growth issues? >> i think china has some really, the demographic is definitely thinking of contraband fishers because between a more militant militarist, you become armed forces community and joking and nationalism. in china the religion is gone. communism is gone as religion. the religion since deng xiaoping in the late '70s, the religion has been get rich, make money. it's all good to make money and now that's all slowing down. so there is no glue that's holding them together except nationalism, except the chip on your shoulder of we used to be great. we're great again. why does any but recognize that what you are starting to see it in territorial expansion. so where they're headed i think is a place where they're going to a lot of internal domestic problems. not just demographics, not just aging population but expansionism.
last time somebody in a part of the world tried that, japan. the other parts of that region can ease asia, southeast asia, asia writ large are kind of weak and couldn't challenge it. but i think china does this without having real blowback from countries in the region who can either militarize, nuclearized, or challenge the chinese. so my concern on the rising china, do you prevent and a rising china from the an aggressive rising china, is probably more up to them that it is to us. >> thank the panelists for these remarkable presentations. [applause] >> just a quick logistical note. for those of you who are going to the dinner and reception committee begins at 6:30. thanks everyone.